suggested by the convex , ~; T the rank—size curve above, these might
best be regarded as the Ii Hi among equals rather than as absolutely
dominant in their domains.
SOCIAL GROUPS AND SOCIAL RELATIONS
The archaeological evidence shows elements of segmentation and
hierarchy. Three broad levels are suggested. Firstly, individual pa:
appear to be associated with largely independent social groups. Never»
theless there were also loosely integrated groups of such units within
which one site might be acknowledged as the most influential in certain
contexts. Finally. all of the sites of Pouto could constitute a
group from time to time. The evidence suggests the impetus for this
high—leve1 grouping usually came from outside even if there was the
internal organisational capacity for this to happen.
Turning to the ethnography, one could instantly relate these three
levels to iwi, hapfi and whanau. This may be the Cfl§B. However, the
essence of the archaeological evidence is that there were no discrete
pre~European social building blocks to be found. Instead, they varied
in a more continuous fashion both in scale and size. Social relations
were very fluid. Centres of activity and influence ebbed and f1owed{
Loose groups of different size coalesced and dissolved. These movements
can be identified in particular with war and peace, but they can be
l expected to have happened for other reasons. The very large undefended
sites in the vicinity of Rangitane and Pouto P5 suggest there were
defensive aggregations of the population there in times of political
crisis. Generally, social relations were flexible and mobile, but took
place within the firmer context of subsistence and settlement stability.
The archaeological expression of Maori society seems more varied and
ephemeral than some of the orthodox ethnographic accounts suggest.
Traditional evidence
E The pattern to be seen in the archaeological past accords better
_ perhaps with the more complicated situation suggested by Land Court
; Records, Traditions mention several named groups who were associated with
* the North Kaipara before the so—called Awa period. Moreover, a number
‘ of groups may have had dealings with Pouto as early as the first pa were
built. For example, the Ngati Whatua are associated with Tauhara (the
pa with the oldest C1“ date of 402i58 years ago). possibly in the early
l6ODs, and in the same general time range there was a reported Nga Puhi
raid on Pare—o—Tonga Pa located nearby on Okaro Creek (Smith l897:65L.
There are various well~known accounts of episodes of fighting and tribal
movement in the Kaipara region probably through the lB0Os and 17005. Yet
it would seem that social affiliations were multiple and territories
could be occupied by different groups who were both distinct from one
another and related to one another, at the same time. They were able to
PA
A Terraced
0 Transverse ditch
H Ring ditch
O Unclassified
2 km
Ffmrrr 70. PE: and their fields offnfluence
Late in prehistory and on into early European times when political
tension increased between the Kaipara region and Nga Puhi, Pouto was
occupied by the Uri—o—hau, a branch of the Ngati Whatua. In some of
the testimony at the Land Court re—hearing of July 4, 1878, Uri—o—hau
were spoken of almost as ii they were a tribe (Taft n.d.). Certainly,
this was the kind of regional level of response to outside pressure
implied archaeologically. One of their principal named pa was Rangitane_
Many were killed when Tauhara fell (Polack lB38:2Dl—5).
"’ ms _ '? 109
coexist until the outbreak of trouble between themselves or with outsiders.Back 
